Commit Message

David, I have spun this patch again and against the net-2.6 tree.
This patch is based on a certain feedback that we got and hence
it is equally urgent as the previous patch for this to get in the net-2.6
tree.
Please consider. I hope this applies cleanly!
Thanks
Ajit
Signed-off-by: Ajit Khaparde <ajitk@serverengines.com>
---
drivers/net/benet/be.h | 3 +-
drivers/net/benet/be_main.c | 132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)

Comments

From: Ajit Khaparde <ajitk@serverengines.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:06:20 +0530
> David, I have spun this patch again and against the net-2.6 tree.> This patch is based on a certain feedback that we got and hence> it is equally urgent as the previous patch for this to get in the net-2.6> tree.> Please consider. I hope this applies cleanly!
This patch does not meet 2.6.30 criteria this late in the release
process. I will only apply it to net-next-2.6
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Actually, I'm not applying this patch at all.
It's garbage.
First of all, your commit message is way too terse. Why did
you do these things, what are the reasons? You don't explain
anything. If it's for performance reasons, you give no
information about that.
Second of all, the change does two things. One of which you
don't even mention in your subject line, all of this LRO stuff.
Third of all, module parameters ARE NOT THE WAY TO CONTROL LRO!
We have an ethtool command to turn it on and off, via the
ethtool_ops->{set,get}_flags() methods. So this part of your
change is totally unacceptable.
Your patch submissions, I have to say, are horrible. Your
patches don't apply cleanly to the net trees, your commit
messages are one-liners at best, and your patches do multiple
unrelated things at the same time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

David,
Sorry for clubbing the two unrelated items in one patch.
The patch apply failed because the previous patch has not been applied.
The module parameter for lro was being added on a request from a distro.
I will drop this change and submit another patch for doing TX completion in
interrupt context instead of through NAPI.
Thanks
Ajit
On 18/05/09 19:23 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not applying this patch at all.> > It's garbage.> > First of all, your commit message is way too terse. Why did> you do these things, what are the reasons? You don't explain> anything. If it's for performance reasons, you give no> information about that.> > Second of all, the change does two things. One of which you> don't even mention in your subject line, all of this LRO stuff.> > Third of all, module parameters ARE NOT THE WAY TO CONTROL LRO!> We have an ethtool command to turn it on and off, via the> ethtool_ops->{set,get}_flags() methods. So this part of your> change is totally unacceptable.> > Your patch submissions, I have to say, are horrible. Your> patches don't apply cleanly to the net trees, your commit> messages are one-liners at best, and your patches do multiple> unrelated things at the same time.> --> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html